Select Committee on European Union Twenty-Third Report

CHAPTER 4: OUR CONCLUSIONS

What is an Annual Policy Strategy for?

114.  We consider that future Annual Policy Strategies need to be clearer about the purpose of the document and about the specific status of each of the priorities or proposals listed. The Commission should provide more background to its proposals so that the reader can more easily understand whether, in including a particular point, the Commission is prioritising a long-standing objective, re-affirming or updating such an objective, or tabling an entirely new initiative for discussion. (para 9)

Towards a more Strategic Strategy

115.  If the Commission focussed its APS on only a few key strategic goals, the clear priority given to these goals would lead to more effective debate and delivery, these goals could be more easily communicated, and the European Union would be better understood. (para 10)

116.  We consider that the Annual Policy Strategy should provide the clear overarching strategy of the Commission's vision for the coming year. It should also indicate, for each area of this strategy, what are the key policy intentions that the Commission will prioritise to achieve that end. (para 11)

117.  We believe that the Annual Policy Strategy should explain which policy areas have moved up the Commission's agenda in the past year (as well as which have moved down), and how the Commission's thinking has developed. (para 13)

118.  The clarity of the structure would be improved if the proposals were collected and presented under policy fields so that those looking at the Annual Policy Strategy could quickly find their areas of interest. (para 15)

The production of the Annual Policy Strategy

119.  We believe that the construction of the Annual Policy Strategy needs to be led from the top: the College of Commissioners should decide on the vision behind the Annual Policy Strategy on the basis of a discussion in which the Commissioners would select both their strategic priorities and the policy areas that must be demoted to make room for them. Further detail for the priorities could then be provided by the Commission services. Commission Directorates-General should not expect to have all of their proposals included in the Annual Policy Strategy. (para 18)

A well-structured dialogue?

120.  It is crucial to the utility of the Annual Policy Strategy that it should provoke a constructive debate within and between the European institutions and parliaments about the European Union's priorities for the coming year. (para 19)

121.  An APS which is both constructed and deconstructed predominantly 'by committee' is unlikely to be strong on the strategic content necessary to provoke the 'bigger picture' debate desired by the Commission; it is necessary that the committees should work to coordinate their scrutiny and to focus on broad priorities rather than specific proposals. (para 23)

122.  There should be a strong political lead to the European Parliament's scrutiny of the Annual Policy Strategy. We recommend that the European Parliament consider methods by which a more political response to the Annual Policy Strategy could be generated. (para 25)

123.  One possibility would be for the European Parliament to complement the work it does on the APS in committee by holding a plenary debate and adopting a resolution on the APS in September. This would allow the political groups to express their opinion on the APS before the Commission produces its ALWP. The Parliament may also wish to consider whether the Commission should enter into a political dialogue with each political group as part of its engagement with the Parliament as a whole. (para 25)

Should the Commission juggle balls or pitch them?

124.  We recommend that the Government should press the Council to make its comments on the Annual Policy Strategy public in order to aid inter-institutional discussion and add to transparency. (para 27)

125.  Where the Annual Policy Strategy includes cross-cutting priorities where competence is shared, discussion of the EU's role in these areas and how it interacts with Member States' action is essential. (para 29)

126.  The Annual Policy Strategy should be a presentation of the Commission's strategic thinking to the other institutions, provoking a political debate and providing the Council with options to discuss. (para 30)

Justifying action

127.  The Commission should provide a clear justification for its key proposals, explaining why the European Union should act in these areas and setting out the limits on such action. (para 32)

128.  The Commission should explain the 'added value' it envisages in its key proposals, as well as considering, in preparing its Annual Policy Strategy, how individual proposals fit into its general strategy and financial framework and how it will ensure delivery of them. (para 34)

Matching resources to ambitions

129.  We urge the Commission to explain clearly in its Annual Policy Strategy the financial constraints around the APS, and the ways in which the Commission can (or cannot) change its spending priorities within this framework. Political priorities must be matched in budgetary terms, and to this end it would be helpful if the Commission would declare which areas of action are receiving less funding in order to allow the Commission to prioritise others. (para 38)

130.  We recommend that the Commission, Council and European Parliament should forge a closer link between the budgetary and legislative processes. (para 41)

131.  We would not want the Annual Policy Strategy to become dominated by a financial bidding process. Nonetheless the relationship of the Annual Policy Strategy to the budgetary procedure should be made clear, within the current financial perspective. (para 41)

132.  We urge the Government to work to ensure that the Council assists in any effort to increase the correlation between political priorities and financial resources. (para 42)

Communicating the Commission's priorities

133.  It seems obvious to us that one important conduit for communicating the Commission's priorities and increasing engagement with the debate about the priorities for the EU should be the APS itself, and we are therefore disappointed that the Annual Policy Strategy for 2008 lacks the degree of clarity that would help the broader audience. (para 43)

Better Regulation and the Annual Policy Strategy

134.  We welcome the Commission's continuing commitment in the area of Better Regulation, and we reiterate our support for Better Regulation and, indeed, for deregulation where appropriate. (para 45)

135.  We agree that it is logical for the Commission to put forward its simplification proposals at the same time as its policy priorities, in order that both may be properly discussed before they are integrated into the ALWP. To maintain the strategic nature of the APS, this list of specific proposals should not be included in the APS, but published in a separate 'Annual Better Regulation Agenda Report' alongside the APS. (para 46)

136.  We recommend that the Commission's Annual Better Regulation Agenda Report should look at the quality of EU legislation, and the steps that the European institutions will take in the coming year to continue their progress on the Better Regulation agenda. (para 52)

137.  We are disappointed that the Commission, in its Annual Policy Strategy for 2008, does not mention the need to give greater prominence in impact assessments to fundamental rights and ensuring human rights compliance of its proposals, and we encourage the Commission to maintain a focus on this as it works on its strategic review of Better Regulation in the EU. We urge the Commission, the Council and the European Parliament to continue their work on the Better Regulation agenda and continue to improve the quality of EU law-making. (para 53)

Conclusions

138.  Our scrutiny and analysis of the APS needs to be assisted by a comprehensive Explanatory Memorandum from the Government. The EM should do more than summarise the proposals listed by the Commission; it should present the Government's initial thoughts on these proposals and priorities, and provide a preliminary assessment of the policy implications. The Government should also push the Commission to provide a more strategic, coherent, well explained and substantiated Annual Policy Strategy that would form the basis for this assessment. (para 55)

139.  We urge the Commission to consider the points brought out by our Sub-Committees and written evidence and we will draw them to the attention of the Commission officials drawing up the Annual Legislative and Work Programme for 2008. (para 57)

140.  We make this Report to the House for debate. (para 56)

---